$5.00
$15.00
$20.00
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Link here.

There's a lot to unpack here. Key summary:

Quote:
Trump’s business conflicts with America’s national security interests cannot be resolved so long as he or any member of his family maintains a financial interest in the Trump Organization during a Trump administration, or even if they leave open the possibility of returning to the company later. The Trump Organization cannot be placed into a blind trust, an arrangement used by many politicians to prevent them from knowing their financial interests; the Trump family is already aware of who their overseas partners are and could easily learn about any new ones.

Many foreign governments retain close ties to and even control of companies in their country, including several that already are partnered with the Trump Organization. Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House. This is why, without a permanent departure of the entire Trump family from their company, the prospect of legal bribery by overseas powers seeking to influence American foreign policy, either through existing or future partnerships, will remain a reality throughout a Trump presidency.

Moreover, the identity of every partner cannot be discovered if Trump reverses course and decided to release his taxes. The partnerships are struck with some of the more than 500 entities disclosed in Trump’s financial disclosure forms; each of those entities has its own records that would have to be revealed for a full accounting of all of Trump’s foreign entanglements to be made public.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
But coughing!
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow, nearly as bad as giving US plutonium rights to Russia.

but you know, coughing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Wow, nearly as bad as giving US plutonium rights to Russia.

but you know, coughing.


Got a link. Or do we just get to trust your word as a loyal minion of The Donald?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Not that I am disagreeing that President Trump could be influenced by his business arrangements with foreign entities, but don't you think President Clinton could similarly be influenced by her past and current associations (financial/personal/diplomatic) with foreign entities? Yet, the latter is upheld as a positive thing for her qualifications.

Pretty much anyone that runs for the office will have a fair amount of overseas involvement.

Edit: or maybe you're arguing that Palin was a great pick because her foreign involvement consisted of looking over the Bering Strait?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Not that I am disagreeing that President Trump could be influenced by his business arrangements with foreign entities, but don't you think President Clinton could similarly be influenced by her past and current associations (financial/personal/diplomatic) with foreign entities? Yet, the latter is upheld as a positive thing for her qualifications.

Pretty much anyone that runs for the office will have a fair amount of overseas involvement.


You're engaging in a false equivalence here because at most, you're comparing the Clinton Foundation to the Trump Organization.

Drew and BJ's increasingly unhinged and usually content-free rants aside, there's simply no serious evidence that the Clinton Foundation engaged in pay-for-play: its tax records are public and they show that the Foundation spends the overwhelming amount of its money on its charitable programs, and that the Clintons themselves derive no direct monetary benefits from it - BJ was in fact reduced to whining about the Foundation donating a relatively small portion of its annual received funds to Bill Clinton's Presidential library because there's simply no there there. If there was any there there, it would have been found by now, if only because so much of the Foundation's records and the Clintons' taxes are publicly available. The Clintons do not materially benefit to any serious degree from the Clinton Foundation. They certainly gain satisfaction from the works it performs, and I'm sure both of their egos are stroked by that more than a little. But they're not rich because of it. They're rich because the market will bear what they charge to deliver a speech, and because there is a lot of demand for their speeches, and there has been that demand since Bill left office.

And - and I have said this before - if you look at the basic boringness of their tax returns, the extremely straightforward way in which the Clintons organize their personal finances, it appears that while the Clintons might enjoy being rich (and who wouldn't), they're not actually motivated by the quest for more money in the way that some rich people are. By all appearances: they get more than enough, and that's enough for them. They do want rich and important people to donate to their charity, but that's not the same thing as wanting to be personally enriched: they want the charity to be successful because when it is, it allows them to pursue the policy initiatives they personally want to pursue and consider important, most of which are honestly pretty decent initiatives - maybe a bit neoliberal for my tastes, but that's how they roll.

In comparison, the Trump Organization is basically Trump's lifeblood and how he directly earns his living, and how his children also directly earn their living for the most part. The Trump Organization is the source of Trump's wealth. When the Organization makes money, Trump makes money, and Trump is obviously and blatantly motivated by money because he perceives that as one of the methods by which he can be recognized as the most important and the best and everything else that gets blood flowing to his tiny dick. Because the Organization is the lifeblood of Trump's personal wealth and because it does so much business with foreign entities - including numerous countries and governments - it follows that he can be personally enticed by foreign countries simply by them working to enrich him personally or by promising to withhold money.

There's a difference between this and simply having "overseas involvement." Hobnobbing with the global elite is problematic in its own way, but the global elite isn't going anywhere anytime soon so being familiar with them is either a necessary evil or a strategic good, depending on how you choose to perceive it. Hillary Clinton can choose to engage with foreign elites more or less on her terms; their ability to materially harm her personally is quite limited. Trump, on the other hand, is essentially BEHOLDEN to overseas interests. Most of his debt (which is in the billions) is owned by one bank - Deutschebank. (Who have a lot of ties to the Russian market - there are other reasons that Trump keeps praising Putin and advocating for policies that Russia would like to see happen, but the fact that they would make Russia happy almost certainly plays into it because Trump knows where his bread is buttered.)
9 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
No, I wasn't comparing the Foundations, I was comparing entanglements.

Clintons are clearly worried about legacies more than money (fairly easy to do when you have a more than sufficient amount). So they may not be as vulnerable materially as Trump, their legacies are, if anything, more susceptible to influence by outside parties (foreign and domestic).

The moneyed interests involved with Trump regard money as important, too, so they are less likely to shun deals with Trump due to decisions that are detrimental to their country because it would actually cost them something as opposed to a diplomatic or social snub.

My point was using foreign entanglements or lack thereof as an attribute to determine for whom to vote isn't a great argument.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
a loyal minion of The Donald?




http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Clintons are clearly worried about legacies more than money (fairly easy to do when you have a more than sufficient amount). So they may not be as vulnerable materially as Trump, their legacies are, if anything, more susceptible to influence by outside parties (foreign and domestic).

The moneyed interests involved with Trump regard money as important, too, so they are less likely to shun deals with Trump due to decisions that are detrimental to their country because it would actually cost them something as opposed to a diplomatic or social snub.


This line of reasoning literally makes no sense. Your post boils down to

"The Clintons want to be remembered well, so they are more vulnerable to being influenced than Trump, whose immediate material well-being - which he values intensely - is directly affected by third parties."
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Both Clinton and Trump (and virtually anyone else running for President) will have foreign relationships that they consider important to themselves so it's not a viable method of differentiation.

To more address your interpretation, Donald could lose half of his fortune (or more) and still live quite comfortably. Could Clinton lose half of the regard she has earned from foreign leaders/diplomats and say the same? I'd say both are pretty vulnerable to losing standing based on their own self-imposed criteria.

I also think that it costs less to withhold favorable regard than it would be to withdraw or fail to enter into a lucrative financial relationship because of pique.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Both Clinton and Trump (and virtually anyone else running for President) will have foreign relationships that they consider important to themselves so it's not a viable method of differentiation.

To more address your interpretation, Donald could lose half of his fortune (or more) and still live quite comfortably. Could Clinton lose half of the regard she has earned from foreign leaders/diplomats and say the same? I'd say both are pretty vulnerable to losing standing based on their own self-imposed criteria.

I also think that it costs less to withhold favorable regard than it would be to withdraw or fail to enter into a lucrative financial relationship because of pique.


Do you, like, understand how bribes work? Because this is getting weirder by the minute watching you try to create an equivalence where one really doesn't exist. The ability to influence Hillary Clinton's desire to push forward on policies she considers valuable is not the same as the ability to directly influence Donald Trump's actual hard assets. It just isn't.

To reiterate: as things currently stand, once in office it is actually rather difficult to blatantly bribe Hillary Clinton, and she is not particularly vulnerable in any logistical sense. Once in office, as things currently stand, it will be painfully easy to blatantly bribe Donald Trump, and he is remarkably vulnerable in any number of logistical senses.
4 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Both Clinton and Trump (and virtually anyone else running for President) will have foreign relationships that they consider important to themselves so it's not a viable method of differentiation.

To more address your interpretation, Donald could lose half of his fortune (or more) and still live quite comfortably. Could Clinton lose half of the regard she has earned from foreign leaders/diplomats and say the same? I'd say both are pretty vulnerable to losing standing based on their own self-imposed criteria.

I also think that it costs less to withhold favorable regard than it would be to withdraw or fail to enter into a lucrative financial relationship because of pique.


Should trump reveal his tax returns?
I think so. Its a dealbreaker for me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:


Donald Trump inaccurately suggests Clinton got paid to approve Russia uranium deal

3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Drew
United States
North Dakota
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
a loyal minion of The Donald?




http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...


Are there dummies here who really think there was no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation? That takes some serious willful ignorance.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/clinton-foundation-preside...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/emails-clinton-foundation-...

http://observer.com/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-global-b...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Stone
United States
Texarkana
Texas
flag msg tools
May the bikini be with you!
badge
I destroy SJWs!
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
Both Clinton and Trump (and virtually anyone else running for President) will have foreign relationships that they consider important to themselves so it's not a viable method of differentiation.

To more address your interpretation, Donald could lose half of his fortune (or more) and still live quite comfortably. Could Clinton lose half of the regard she has earned from foreign leaders/diplomats and say the same? I'd say both are pretty vulnerable to losing standing based on their own self-imposed criteria.

I also think that it costs less to withhold favorable regard than it would be to withdraw or fail to enter into a lucrative financial relationship because of pique.


Should trump reveal his tax returns?
I think so. Its a dealbreaker for me.


I really don't think Trump is chasing your vote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGK
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Are there dummies here who really think there was no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation? That takes some serious willful ignorance.


We have at this point all read your stupid three links you keep posting over and over again, and the fact remains that after months of investigation nobody has been able to find one concrete favour Hillary actually did as Secretary of State for any one of her donors. You have innuendo and whining and precious little else.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
On the other hand we do have that documented pay to play deal with Trump/Bondi over the Trump U situation.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
flag msg tools
admin
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, wait: that was just straight out bribery to avoid prosecution, not pay to play. My mistake.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
a loyal minion of The Donald?




http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...


Are there dummies here who really think there was no pay-to-play at the Clinton Foundation? That takes some serious willful ignorance.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/14/clinton-foundation-preside...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/emails-clinton-foundation-...

http://observer.com/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-global-b...


Not as bad as the idiocy it takes not to connect the dot between the large Russian investments in Trump businesses and things like The Donald stating that defending European allies against Russian aggression is not a given
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, Clinton has some questionable contacts, but they are not as direct as Trumps.

Nor do they seem as close.

This is (to my mind) the biggest problem with this campaign, two (essentially) unelectable candidates who in a normal election should not stand a chance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:


Should trump reveal his tax returns?
I think so. Its a dealbreaker for me.


I won't vote for him either way, but I'd love to see him release his tax returns and point out which deductions he would get rid of.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.